Providing comprehensive legal counsel to business organizations of all sizes from small privately held organizations to large established entities, our legal professionals are Seattle's leading business formation and governance resource.

The creditor-debtor attorneys at MPBA provide legal services for commercial creditors and debtors, including out-of-court workouts and receivership. We represent businesses, banks, credit unions, loan servicers and other commercial creditors in the collection of debts as well as the enforcement of creditor rights and remedies.

The dispute resolution attorneys at MPBA are experienced in the procedures and nuances of the various methods of dispute resolution available to clients. They are skilled negotiators and exceptional legal strategists versed in making claims, arguing cases, and navigating the methods and procedures of each avenue.

MPBA represents employers in both the public and private sectors, as well as individual employees. In addition to litigating, mediating, and arbitrating employment-related claims, we provide drafting and advisory services, with an eye toward avoiding litigation.

The estate planning team at MPBA provides comprehensive services for individuals at all stages of life in all aspects of estate planning.

We have extensive experience in the laws relating to product sales, distribution and franchising.

MPBA represents many types of health care organizations and medical and dental providers, with particular emphasis on health care regulation, health care business and licensing and disciplinary actions.

MPBA advises, participates in negotiations, and litigates to insure that all available sources of insurance coverage and recovery are utilized to solve problems faced by our clients.

MPBA's Washington trial attorneys represent clients in all types of business, real estate and personal civil disputes in all state and federal courts at the trial and appellate levels. Our goal is to obtain the best possible result for our clients for a reasonable fee.

MPBA provides a broad range of services to such municipal clients as school districts and a major housing authority.

MPBA’s experienced team of trust and estate litigators seeks cost-effective solutions to the unique challenges arising in this area. MPBA's team has a strong knowledge of the legal tools available, and the ability to use those tools efficiently to produce results.

Ms. Brockman advises clients in all aspects of real estate transactions including buying, selling, leasing, boundary and title issues; title insurance; development; and management.

Luke Campbell is a leading Seattle business, real estate, and civil litigation attorney, with significant experience in landlord-tenant law. He has represented local and national retail clients in dozens of landlord-tenant disputes and has also represented individual property owners in fair housing and discrimination claims.

Drew's practice emphasizes general business litigation. His legal experience and academic background provide him with the skills to handle a wide range of business matters. Clients benefit from his energetic, innovative and effective approach in representing their interests.

Mr. Easter represents clients in a wide range of real estate, construction and general business litigation. The emphasis in Scott's litigation practice is upon realistic initial assessment of the client's legal position and options, together with focused attempts to settle while maximum saved litigation costs can be applied to a solution of the underlying problem.

Scott's practice emphasizes civil litigation and alternative dispute resolution for business and municipal clients. Scott also provides counsel to clients on litigating real-estate matters, fiduciary-related matters, as well as insurance coverage matters. He has litigated a broad range of civil matters in state and federal courts and in mediation, arbitration, and administrative forums.

Jay’s practice focuses on commercial and general civil litigation with an emphasis on employment, real estate, contract, and fiduciary-related matters.

Bill Goodwin retired after nearly 50 years at Montgomery Purdue, during which he principally handled complex business transactions in the areas of corporate, commercial and real estate law.

Mr. Gossler concentrates his practice in Commercial Litigation and Bankruptcy/Creditor-Debtor Law. He also represents both debtors and creditors in bankruptcy cases and related bankruptcy litigation.

Ms. Hughes' practice encompasses business counseling and dispute resolution primarily for clients engaged in franchising, product manufacturing, selling and distribution, licensing and construction, including on-going advice on employment law and a wide range of transactional subjects.

Mr. Hurst brings to the table the kind of sophistication and experience necessary to structure and negotiate a successful joint venture.

Michelle Kierce is a devoted attorney whose practice is focused on commercial and general civil litigation, with an emphasis in construction, contract, real estate, and business disputes.

Kristi O’Brien is a leading Seattle business attorney and health care lawyer. Kristi’s practice is primarily in the area of business transactions and real estate transactions involving corporations and medical practitioners.

Aided by a diverse background in commercial law, Mr. Péwé counsels clients in all aspects of their businesses, from day-to-day operations to long-range planning, including leasing, purchase and sale transactions, supplier contracts, franchise contracts and employee relations.

Josh Pope advises clients in all aspects of real estate and business transactions.

Mr. Reed’s practice focuses on commercial and corporate transactions and litigation with experience in real estate law and landlord-tenant issues.

Tammy Roe practices in the area of labor and employment law, advising employers regarding wage and hour issues, discipline and discharge, insurance coverage, construction and enforceability of employment contracts, employee policy manuals and covenants not to compete, as well as a myriad of other issues.

Mr. VandenBerghe practices commercial and general civil litigation.

Jim holds an advanced degree in taxation and has extensive experience in federal tax planning, return preparation, and problem resolution involving the Internal Revenue Service. He assists clients in the areas of estate planning, probate and trust administration, corporate and limited liability company formation and planning, as well as all areas of tax law.

Each person may exclude from income up to $250,000 of capital gain on the sale of the person’s principal residence (known as the “gain exclusion,” governed by Internal Revenue Code § 121). A married couple may exclude up to $500,000 if the following criteria are met: (a) the couple files their income tax returns as married filing jointly, (b) either spouse meets the ownership requirement, (c) both spouses meet the use requirement, and (d) neither spouse is ineligible under the frequency limit, which means that a taxpayer may only take advantage of the gain exclusion every two years. The ownership and use requirements are discussed below.

The taxpayer must have owned the residence during periods aggregating at least 2 years over the 5 years preceding the sale (the “ownership requirement”). The taxpayer must have used the property as his or her “principal residence” for periods aggregating at least 2 years over the 5 years preceding the sale (the “use requirement”). “Principal residence” generally means the residence the taxpayer occupies at least a majority of the time during the year, though other factors can be taken into consideration, such as the taxpayer’s mailing address and address used on tax returns, driver’s license, etc.

However, the gain exclusion does not apply to a proportionate amount of the gain attributable to periods of “nonqualified use.” A period of nonqualified use is defined as any period after January 1, 2009 during which the property is not used as the principal residence of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse. The proportion of the gain for which the gain exclusion is not available is the ratio which the aggregate periods of nonqualified use bear to the total period the property was owned by the taxpayer. Periods of nonqualified use prior to January 1, 2009 are not counted against the taxpayer.

Examples of the nonqualified use calculation are as follows. Please note that these examples do not take into account depreciation, and assume that the taxpayer has not used the gain exclusion in the last two years (the frequency limit):

A and B, a married couple, purchased a house prior to January 1, 2009 and rented it out from the time of purchase through December 31, 2012. A and B moved back into the house on January 1, 2013, and sold the house on January 1, 2015. Their gain on the sale was $225,000. Two-thirds of the gain (four years of rental use divided by six total years), or $150,000, is allocated to nonqualified use and is not eligible for the gain exclusion. The couple must treat the $150,000 as capital gain. However, the remaining $75,000 is less than the $500,000 maximum gain exclusion for a married couple filing jointly, so that the remaining gain is excluded from gross income.

Assume the same facts as above, except the gain on the sale was $600,000. Two-thirds of the gain ($400,000) is allocated to nonqualified use and is not eligible for the gain exclusion. The couple must treat that amount as capital gain. The remaining $200,000 is less than the $500,000 maximum gain exclusion for a married couple filing jointly, so that $200,000 is excluded from gross income.

Assume the same facts as above, except the gain on the sale was $1,800,000. Two-thirds of the gain ($1,200,000) is allocated to nonqualified use and is not eligible for the gain exclusion. The couple must treat that amount as capital gain. The remaining $600,000 exceeds the $500,000 maximum gain exclusion for a married couple filing jointly. The couple can exclude $500,000 from gross income, but must include a total of $1,300,000 ($1,200,000 for nonqualified use plus $100,000 in excess of the gain exclusion) as capital gains.

When a taxpayer purchases property and lives there as the taxpayer’s primary residence, but then moves out and converts the property to a nonqualified use, the taxpayer can still take the full amount of the gain exclusion so long as the homeowner still qualifies for the gain exclusion in all other respects. In other words, a primary residence that is subsequently converted to investment property will still qualify for the maximum available gain exclusion provided the property is sold no later than 3 years after its conversion to investment property. The property will no longer qualify for the gain exclusion once it has been held by the taxpayer as investment property beyond the three (3) year window. So, if the taxpayer converts a principal residence to an investment property, there is no pro-ration of the gain within the three (3) year window; if the taxpayer converts an investment property to a principal residence, pro-ration of the gain exclusion is required, as described above.

Exceptions to the above requirements may be available in certain situations, such as a sale of a residence due to a change in employment, health or unforeseen circumstances. Whether an exception applies is based on the particular facts and circumstances.

Email Disclaimer

Before proceeding, please note: If you are not a current client of Montgomery Purdue Blankinship & Austin PLLC please do not include any information in this email that you or someone else considers to be confidential or secret in nature. Submission of this email does not create an attorney-client relationship and any information provided will not be protected by attorney-client privilege.